REF-690 · Cormier, Freitas, Rubio-Arias et al., 2020 · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, · Paper · PubMed
In team-sport athletes, both complex (heavy and light sets alternated set-for-set) and contrast (all heavy first, then all light) training improved 1RM, jump, sprint and change of direction
Complex training potentially slightly more
Key Findings
Definitions used: complex (CPX) alternates a biomechanically similar heavy exercise and a lighter power exercise set for set (e.g. squat then countermovement jump); contrast (CNT) does all heavy strength exercises at the start of the session and all lighter power exercises at the end.
27 articles (PubMed, SPORTDiscus, WoS); outcomes as standardised mean differences in team-sport athletes.
Baseline to post: 1RM large for both (CPX SMD 2.01, CNT 1.29); vertical jump large for CPX (0.88), medium for CNT (0.55); sprint large for CPX (-0.94), small for CNT (-0.27, CI crossing zero); change of direction large for CPX (-1.17), medium for CNT (-0.68).
Studies with a control group: 1RM CPX 1.61, CNT 1.38; jump CPX 0.85, CNT 0.50; sprint CPX -0.69, CNT -0.51; change of direction CPX -0.83 (no controlled CNT studies).
Authors' conclusion: both may improve performance in team sports, with complex training potentially leading to slightly greater effects.
Practical Application
Across 27 studies in team-sport athletes, both set-for-set complex training and heavy-then-light contrast sessions improved 1RM, jump, sprint and change of direction, with complex training showing larger effects on jump (SMD 0.88 vs 0.55) and sprint (-0.94 vs -0.27) — pairing a heavy lift with a similar explosive movement set-for-set is the slightly better-supported sequence.
Not from this paper; the base's own practice: allow enough rest within each pair that the explosive set is performed fresh rather than fatigued.
Limitations
Mostly pre-post effects; fewer studies with control groups, and none for contrast training on change of direction.
The two sequences were compared across studies, not mainly head-to-head; "slightly greater" is the authors' hedge.
Team-sport populations only.
How this entry was checked and changed
Why this level
regraded 2026-09-27 from A: meta-analysis of mostly small pre-post effects, few controlled comparisons
Content correction 2026-09-27
"Complex/contrast (one method) comparable-to-favourable vs traditional sequencing" -> the meta-analysis compares complex (set-for-set) with contrast (all heavy first, then light); both improved, complex potentially slightly more. No "traditional" comparator.
Added the abstract's SMDs; level A -> A- (mostly pre-post effects of small studies).
PMID 32084108 (resolves to an unrelated adolescent training-schedule paper) -> 32084104, the PubMed record returned by searching this DOI.